W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > October 2002

RE: remembering business data and taxonomy in description

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 14:15:29 -0600
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E4042DD75F@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org



> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Booth [mailto:dbooth@w3.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 3:56 PM
> To: Heather Kreger; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: remembering business data and taxonomy in description
> 
> 
> 
> Heather,
> 
> What you have described is formally called an "ontology": 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/Talks/0813-semweb-dbooth/slide37-0.html

Uhh, Heather used the perfectly respectable and widely-understood term
"taxonomy."  I'd suggest that the VERY LAST THING we need right now is
another terminology dispute :-)

OTOH, if someone were to demonstrate how an OWL formalization of anything
that we are scratching our heads over would help clarify matters, I would be
most appreciative. 

p.s.  Hours after the telcon last week, I understood why David was stressing
the "two kinds of nouns and one verb" discipline.  RDF predicates consist of
a subject-predicate-object triple ... two nouns and a verb :-) 
If there are any intellectual tools we can use to make sense out of the
Choreography Chaos, I'm all for them. 
 
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2002 16:16:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:09 GMT